Strict Liability

Question 1

What is strict liability?

Answer 1

Strict liability offences don’t require a men’s rea to be proved. They only require the actus reus of the offence to be established.

Question 2

Gammon Ltd

Answer 2

Lord Scarron laid down the criteria upon which a court should decide whether or not it is appropriate to impose strict liability.

Question 3

Harrow London Borough Council v Saga 1999

Answer 3

Case facts:
One of their staff sold a sticker to a 13 year old by mistake.

Point of law:
The defendant was found guilty for seeking a ticket to an under-aged child, even though he had done his best to prevent it from happening. There was an actus reus but no men’s rea.

Question 4

Callow v Tillstone

Answer 4

Case facts:
The defendant who was a butcher, asked a vet to examine a carcass of meat to see if it was fit for human consumption. The vet said it was fine so the butcher offered it for sale. It then can to light that the vet had been negligent and the meat was actually contaminated.

Point of law:
The defendant was found guilty of offering unsound meat for sale, even though he had taken reasonable steps to check it.

Question 5

Alphacell v Woodward

Answer 5

In the House or Lords it was held that the offence of causing polluted matter to enter a river always a strict liability offence.

Question 6

Sweet v Parsley (1970)

Answer 6

If there are not any words in the statute that provide the clues about the need for men’s rea the courts will start from the presumption that all criminal offences require men’s rea. This can explains this.

Question 7

Saha

Answer 7

Suggests that strict liability offences are sometimes imposed for the protection of groups of people who might be seen as potentially vulnerable.